Transcript Transport Strategy and Policy

London’s Congestion Charge
Introduction to the Scheme and its
Principal Impacts
Introduction
•
Reg Evans
– Transport economist with Halcrow
– ROCOL Study (Road Charging Options for London)
• led Effectiveness Assessment
– Transport for London
• Cost benefit assessment published on TfL website
• Assessment of car travel demand elasticities
• Work to assess responses to changes in charging
scheme
Structure of presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why congestion charging in London?
The scheme
Attitudes towards charging
Traffic impacts
Economic impacts
Wider impacts
Where congestion charging is going now
– In London
– In the UK
Political background
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1984 – Thatcher Government abolished GLC
1997 – Labour (Blair) Government elected
1999 – GLA Act
– Elected Mayor in 2000
– Charging powers
2000 – May - Ken Livingstone elected Mayor
2003 – February – £5 congestion charge introduced
2005 – July – charge increased to £8
2007 – February – Western extension area added
ROCOL Study
•
•
•
1999 GLA Act
– Elected Mayor
– Workplace Parking Levy, Road Charging
– Revenues for first 10 years to be spent on Mayor’s
transport strategy
ROCOL, 1999: Commissioned by Government Office for
London to advise Mayoral candidates on the charging
options available to them
Had to recommend a scheme that could be implemented in
Mayor’s first term (2000 - 2004)
Before charging
•
2000: Central London off peak traffic speeds around 9 mph
- similar to horse-drawn traffic 100 years earlier
•
Business organisations - London Chamber of Commerce,
London First – transport their number one concern
•
95% of 16 – 19 year olds ‘improving air quality, reducing
traffic and cleaning up the streets’ at the top of making
London a more pleasant place to live
•
80% of motorists - congestion and air pollution in London
‘very serious’
•
Public transport mode share – around 90% to central area
in am peak
Air quality (NO2) problem
ROCOL scheme, Implemented scheme,
Lobby groups
ROCOL proposal Implemented
scheme
Area
Technology
Lobby groups
Central London – as implemented
Licence with ANPR enforcement
Charge level
£5 for cars/vans
£15 for HGVs
£5 for all vehicles
Retailers
Hauliers
Charging
hours
Weekdays
0700 - 1900
Weekdays
0700 - 1830
Theatres
Entertainment
lobby
Exemptions
Emergency
vehicles
Disabled
…plus Taxis
Alternative fuel
Residents
discount
Taxi drivers
Residents
London and congestion charge area
| | |
Current scheme area
Current scheme
•
•
•
•
•
•
Main business, retail and entertainment areas in Central
London
All main rail termini – Waterloo, Victoria, Paddington,
Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras – within charged area
£8 charge per day for driving or parking on public roads
within charged area between 0700 and 1800 hours
Weekdays only – not weekends or public holidays
Vehicle owner registers vehicle/agrees to pay for a given
day – by phone, text, on-line, at retail outlets
ANPR enforcement
– cameras photograph number plates of vehicles
entering/leaving and within charged area
– photographs of registered vehicles deleted, of
unregistered vehicles retained
Principal exemptions and discounts
•
Exempt
– licensed taxis and minicabs
– some specialist vehicles used by emergency services
and disabled
•
100% discount
– blue badge holders
– alternative fuel vehicles
•
Residents’ discount
– 5 consecutive days driving for 50% of normal daily
charge, ie, £4
– so resident who drives every day pays £0.80 per day,
90% discount
Use made of discounts
Attitudes towards congestion charge
Figure 4.2 - Support towards congestion
charging in Central London
Introduction of
charging scheme (Feb 03)
Net support (%)
100%
50%
35
30
19
0%
0
-5
One year after
congestion charging (Feb 04)
20
26
-2
-50%
-100%
Nov/Dec Jan
02
03
(W1)
(W2)
Feb
03
(W3)
March
03
(W4)
April
03
(W5)
July Sept/Oct March
03
03
04
(W7) (W8)
(W10)
Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 2,056; W2 = 1,048; W3 = 1,012; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002;
W8 = 1,007; W10 = 2,001)
2
Perception of effectiveness
Figure 4.3 - Effectiveness of congestion
charging
Introduction of
charging scheme (Feb 03)
Net effective (%)
100%
50%
3
51
50
March
03
(W4)
April
03
(W5)
One year after
congestion charging (Feb 04)
57
51
6
0%
-6
-50%
-100%
Nov/Dec Jan
02
03
(W1)
(W2)
Feb
03
(W3)
July Sept/Oct March
03
03
04
(W7) (W8)
(W10)
Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 1,981; W2 = 1,016; W3 = 986; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002;
W8 = 1,007)
3
Concerns about public transport
Figure 4.8 - Will overload public transport
Introduction of
charging scheme (Feb 03)
100%
One year after
congestion charging (Feb 04)
Net agree (%)
50%
20
20
27
10
6
0%
-7
-5
-9
-50%
-100%
Nov/Dec Jan
02
03
(W1)
(W2)
Feb
03
(W3)
March
03
(W4)
April
03
(W5)
July Sept/Oct March
03
03
04
(W7) (W8)
(W10)
Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 1,981; W2 = 1,016; W3 = 986; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002;
W8 = 1,007; W10 = 2,001)
8
Another tax?
Figure 4.12 - Just another tax on Londoners
Introduction of
charging scheme (Feb 03)
100%
Net agree (%)
50%
32
42
One year after
congestion charging (Feb 04)
45
18
27
11
22
15
0%
-50%
-100%
Nov/Dec Jan
02
03
(W1)
(W2)
Feb
03
(W3)
March
03
(W4)
April
03
(W5)
July Sept/Oct March
03
03
04
(W7) (W8)
(W10)
Base: MORI CCZ Tracker Survey, (W1 = 1,981; W2 = 1,016; W3 = 986; W4 = 1,007; W5 = 1,020; W7 = 1,002;
W8 = 1,007; W10 = 2,001)
12
Central area traffic reductions
Traffic by time of day
Western extension traffic reductions
Traffic by time of day
Central area speed changes
Principal economic benefits
(£8 charge)
£million per year
Cars vans,
goods vehicles
Buses
Total
Travel time and
reliability
260
43
303
Operating costs
28
28
Deterred trips
-31
-31
Compliance costs
-19
-19
14
14
CO2
2
2
Air quality
1
1
Accidents
Total
BCR of 1.7:1
255
43
298
Financial performance – FY 2007
£ million
Costs
Revenues
Scheme operation
91
Other / TfL costs
40
Total costs
131
Charges
195
Enforcement income
73
Total revenues
268
Net revenues
137
Who benefits?
•
Transport sector
– Road users – high-value business trips, taxis, other
exempt / discounted vehicles
– Bus users / operators: bus movements up 19%,
passengers up 32%
– Cyclists (up 50%) and pedestrians
•
Other sectors
– TfL: No discernible significant effects – positive or
negative
• Financial and business services
• Public services
• Hotels and restaurants
• Retail
• Commercial property
London – A Tale of Two Mayors
•
•
•
•
•
Ken Livingstone
2000 - 2008
Introduced congestion
charge…and Western
extension
Researched feasibility of
satellite-based Londonwide scheme
Consulted on £25 per day
emissions-related charge
•
•
•
•
Boris Johnson
2008 – 2012
Will withdraw charge from
Western Extension zone if
current consultation finds
against it
Will keep central area
charge but no interest in
expansion
Government Policy to around 2006
• 2004 Transport Innovation Fund
– Large sums of money available for urban
transport schemes
– Direct road pricing measures needed to qualify
– 12 cities – larger and smaller – given funding to
work up schemes
– Only Manchester still contemplating direct
charging
– Manchester is having a public vote on its
proposals, as Edinburgh did
Early 2007: E-petition
• Downing Street e-petition
• ‘Abandon idea of road pricing…sinister tracking of
every vehicle…unfair tax…improve our roads to
reduce congestion’
• February 2007: 1.7 million hits
• PM response:
– No decision made about national road pricing
– Difficult choice about how to tackle increasing
congestion
– Not a “stealth tax” on motorists
– Could be a case for moving away from current
system of motoring taxation
Annual Vehicle Excise Duty
VED band
CO2 (g/km)
£ per year
A
<100
0
B
101 – 120
35
C
121 - 150
120
D
151 - 165
145
E
166 - 185
170
F
186 - 225
210
G
>226
400
VED generates around £5.5 billion per year
Fuel price – around £1 per litre
Fuel price
34.8p
Fuel duty
50.3p
VAT – 17.5% on duty as
well as price
14.9p
Fuel duty generates £25 billion per year
VAT on petrol / diesel around £7.5 billion
Where is charging going?
• London
– May reduce charged area
– No apparent interest in developing the scheme
• Other cities
– Only Manchester actively pursuing…for now
• Nationally
– On back burner
– Two main political parties silent on the issue
London was different
• High level of congestion
• Very high level of public transport use
– Few adversely affected – most would benefit
– PT able to handle transferred car trips
• No urban competition
• An elected Mayor
What is needed?
• Time
– To recover from e-petition
– To recover from recession
• Congestion
– At an unacceptable level
• Political change
– Central government to take the lead
– Acceptance of change to car / fuel taxation
– Perhaps changed governance of our cities
So – currently I am not too hopeful
Thank you
ROCOL forecasts and system outturn
ROCOL forecast
System outturn
Traffic reduction in
central area
12% over 0600 – 2000
period
15% reduction in all
4+ wheel vehicles
PT usage
30,000 trips transfer
to PT in am peak
period
29,000 more bus
passengers
Central area speeds
From 15 to 18 km/h in
am peak
From 14.5 to 17
km/h in charging
hours
Charges and Penalties
•
Normal £8 charge payable up to midnight on day of travel
•
£10 charge payable by midnight the next day
•
Penalty Charge Notice is £120
– £60
if paid within 14 days
– £180
if not paid within 28 days
Payment mechanisms